Lightroom vs Aperture - The Results
by Michael Clark03/06/2007
Editor's note: Once Lightroom 1.0 was released, many people suggested that an Aperture vs Lightroom comparison would be valuable. On one hand, I liked the idea because comparisons, when handled properly, are useful. But I wanted something that would be helpful for both our Aperture and Lightroom communities.
It dawned on me that we could run parallel comparisons by two different writers on each of our sites. From the Aperture blog I asked Micah Walter, and from our Lightroom site, Michael Clark, the author of this article.
In my opinion both of these guys have put forth an outstanding effort. In Micah's article, Aperture vs Lightroom - An O'Reilly "Inside Aperture" Field Test, he takes his Aperture experience and pits it against Lightroom during a real shoot. And here in Michael's article, he brings his Lightroom experience into play as he compares it to Aperture.
To get the full benefit of what these guys have done, I encourage you to read both articles. It's an investment of time, I know, but the reward will be a greater understanding of these two innovative photo management applications.
A Week with Lightroom... and Aperture
After a long week of comparing Lightroom and Aperture, things are starting to heat up, including my MacBook Pro. Woohoo, I'm just waiting for it to ignite into flames after putting these two applications to the test. I've been working with each program and am ready to give my opinions on the topics I listed in my first Lightroom vs. Aperture post on February 19th.
I'd like to reiterate that these are my opinions; I don't claim to be an expert on either of these software applications. The program that works best for me is based on my present knowledgebase of these two programs, the type and quantity of images I produce, and my previous experience. Your experience may differ--all part of the fun. So, lean back in a comfy chair and relax. This could take a while.
Because I have an Apple MacBook Pro that's newer than my G5 tower, and because Aperture won't load onto my G5, I worked with both programs on my laptop so as to keep the comparison equal. My MacBook Pro has 2GB of RAM installed and has a Dual 2.3 GHz processor. And just for the record, I know Lightroom inside and out. I've used Aperture to work up a number of images in the past, so I know how to use it already to some degree, but I'm no expert. I shoot with Nikons and my main camera is a Nikon D2x.
Color Management
Aperture and Lightroom handle color in much the same way, and they're both dependent on a good monitor calibration device to assure consistent color. In Aperture, the color space for exported images is controlled in the Image Export Preset (Preset > Image Export) while in Lightroom, it's in the Export dialog box itself. No huge differences that I can see here.
Importing Images and Adding Metadata
In my experience, there isn't much difference between how you import images into Lightroom or Aperture. Lightroom has some unique and slightly more powerful options, such as being able to back up images as you import them. And the user interface is much nicer with Lightroom thanks to the metadata templates. Lightroom reminds me of Photo Mechanic. The ability to back up images as they're imported (if you're importing from a memory card) is just another nice touch to help speed up the workflow process.
I didn't notice a huge difference in how long it took each program to import images. Both programs set up a "hot" folder on the desktop to automatically import images, which is especially nice if you're shooting tethered.
File/Folder Structure
The folder structures for each program differ only slightly, so this is one of those cases where personal preference matters most. It's nice that you can create projects and smart folders in Aperture but I don't really need that for my workflow. With all of the other topics I'm covering here, I confess I didn't have a lot of time to work with the different projects and smart folder structure in Aperture.
Photo Editing: Ranking and Rating Images, Stacking and Versions
Editor's note: We distinguish between "photo editing," which is selecting the best shots from a day's work, and "image editing," which is altering the pixels on a picture, such as making an exposure adjustment. In this section, Michael compares the photo editing capabilities of both Aperture and Lightroom.
Photo editing is the raison d'etre for both Aperture and Lightroom. Both of these applications are far ahead of any other photo editing software currently available, and both speed up the selection process considerably. It seems that Aperture and Lightroom were created specifically to deal with the large number of images shot digitally these days. And both handle that task extremely well.
As much as I'd like to say that I prefer one program over the other, I think both are superior editing applications. With large dual monitors (see user interface section below) and a super fast desktop computer, Aperture becomes a very potent editing tool. Lightroom may seem simple compared to Aperture in this regard, but its simplicity is its greatest strength during the photo editing process.
With both applications, ranking and rating your pictures is simple. There's not much difference save for the fact that Lightroom allows you three different methods for ranking images--color, stars and flags--while Aperture uses only stars. This isn't terribly important, but it's nice to have the color ratings in Lightroom so I can color code which images are going to my various stock agencies or other clients and not disturb my star ratings.
Now let's get to Stacking in Aperture and Lightroom. Personally, I don't see the need to use stacks. My methods for editing use star ratings in stages, and I upgrade the star ratings in successive editing sessions to choose which images get processed. I find this to be a more logical editing process. It gives me time to really look at my images and decide which ones are the real gems from a photo shoot. Having said all that, there's no arguing that the Stacking feature is much better implemented in Aperture than in Lightroom. That's because of the visual separation of the images in Aperture. In Lightroom, it works almost the same way, but it's hard to tell where one stack ends and another begins.
The Versions feature works similarly in Lightroom and Aperture also. In fact, it works so well in both applications that I like them equally. I'm happy Lightroom has added this feature because it lets me make black and white versions of my favorite color images without altering the original color master.
And last, but certainly not least, both Aperture and Lightroom have really sophisticated Compare modes for pulling up images side by side and comparing them at 100 percent or at screen size. This is one of the best features in both programs and really allows you to analyze your images on a technical level. I only wish they'd let us compare more than two images. It would be great to be able to compare up to five images at 100 percent at the same time.
Showing messages 1 through 18 of 18.
-
Exterior Hardrives
2009-06-29 05:06:31 JamieF1 [View]
-
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 08:13:38 bendee [View]
I've been using LR for a few weeks and have been puzzled by the way LR handles those images I capture with RAW and Jpeg saved for the same image. I usually do this so that I can immediately send the Jpeg off to someone, while I decide what I'm going to do with the RAW image. I can't find those Jpegs in LR even though they're recorded as a separate file in Finder and even in Bridge. All LR shows is the RAW images. Those images don't even show up in the LR folders, and the image numbers exactly add up to only the RAW images. On the other hand, if I only capture Jpeg, then LR shows this image and does so as a Jpeg. Any explanation? -
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 08:40:10 michaelclarkphoto [View]
I'd suggest separating the Jpegs into another folder before importing into Lightroom - that way everything stays separated and isn't confusing. Don't know why Lightroom isn't importing your Jpegs with the RAWs - maybe check your preferences.
-
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 21:13:08 bendee [View]
Did check my preferences and can't find a command for this. Separating Jpegs and Raw somewhat defeats the purpose of setting my camera to take both for a single image (I only do this when I expect to send files off ASAP). It's so much simpler when they're together (like Bridge), and I would have expected that if LR is smart enough to ignore the Jpegs, it would be smart enough to stack them under the RAW images. Have you encountered this problem, or is it only me and my LR settings? Or does LR assume it's so good that users no longer ever need to capture both RAW and Jpegs for one image. LR works fine when I only capture one file format (either RAW or Jpeg). -
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 22:33:16 michaelclarkphoto [View]
In a future version of Lightroom it may work as you wish, but for now it is what it is. I don't see why separating the images is a problem. For myself and my workflow, I wait to send out any images because I don't want to send jpeg's from the camera and then work up the RAW's and have them look different. I have gone to an all RAW workflow. I know for yourself and many others that are on tight deadlines this will not work. If I am on tight deadlines I send un-touched RAW files to a client - have them tell me what they want and then I work those up.
-
Lightroom handling of RAW/Jpeg images
2007-06-10 08:13:24 bendee [View]
I've been using LR for a few weeks and have been puzzled by the way LR handles those images I capture with RAW and Jpeg saved for the same image. I usually do this so that I can immediately send the Jpeg off to someone, while I decide what I'm going to do with the RAW image. I can't find those Jpegs in LR even though they're recorded as a separate file in Finder and even in Bridge. All LR shows is the RAW images. Those images don't even show up in the LR folders, and the image numbers exactly add up to only the RAW images. On the other hand, if I only capture Jpeg, then LR shows this image and does so as a Jpeg. Any explanation?
-
portability and flickr
2007-04-12 16:18:22 gfurry [View]
I have looked all around for an easy solution to my 2 issues with Lightroom. #1 How do you easily shoot and edit on the road and then transfer everything over to your master library when you get home? Not just the images but the edits and the history.
#2 In Aperture I use the flickr export plugin to upload photos to flickr. It lets me upload everything very easily and even adds a flckr keyword to the image after it has uploaded it so I know which pix I have uploaded. Is there a simple way or similar plugin available for Lightroom?
-
Lightroom's major missing feature...
2007-03-23 07:30:10 vince_m5 [View]
Applescript! How does Adobe, who have incorporated some of the most extensive Applescript dictionaries available into Photoshop, Indesign, and Illustrator *totally* drop the ball on Lightroom?
Please tell me that this is in the plans for version 1.1... it would just about make the purchase decision a no-brainer.
vince
-
Slowness and Lightroom
2007-03-15 16:22:03 michaelclarkphoto [View]
Steven -
Sorry to hear that you have had speed issues with Lightroom. You are the first I have ever heard that has had this problem - most complain that Aperture is way slower than Lightroom.
I offer the following advice:
1 - check to see that you have at least 50% of your hard drive space on your G5 available. If you are working with less than 25% unused that can slow down all applications especially these.
2 - make sure that you Render the 1:1 previews after importing images into Lightroom. It doesn't happen auotmatically and this will greatly speed up everything in lightroom.
3 - I've used Lightroom with a Nikon D2x (12 MP) and a Canon 1Ds (16 MP ) so unless you are using a MF 39 MP back this shouldn't matter too much.
4 - if you have your lightroom Libray/cache on an external hard drive (USB or Firewire) this can massively (i.e. BIG TIME) slow down everything. Put the cache on a faster drive with a SATA connection if need be or better yet leave it on the G5's internal drive.
I have the exact same computer as you do and have experienced very snappy and fast movement in Lightroom - faster than any imaging software I've ever used. So I don't know what to tell you otherwise.
In terms of the user interface, well that is personal preference - go with what works for you. Happy hunting...
Cheers, Michael Clark
....
www.michaelclarkphoto.com
-
Interesting observation on speed
2007-03-15 13:06:04 Bruizer [View]
I enjoyed reading your review. Having been a user of C1 Pro for the past 4 years or so, I felt they are falling way behind in many areas of the RAW interface program and decided to set out and find a new tool. I did a 1 week use of both Aperture (1.5.1) and Lightroom 1.0 to try and decide what applications I would end up using for the next 4 years.
The MAJOR deciding factor is Lightroom was simply a DOG!!! There was no contest (this is on a Power Mac Dual G5 2.0 Ghz/GForce Ultra 6800 DDL Video/4.5 GB RAM). Every action felt like it was on molasses. In short, Lightroom was (and still is) simply too slow for productive use on my machine. This was from waiting several seconds to load images to very slow updates on any adjustments (1-2 seconds).
Aperture, on the other hand, simply glided most of the time. If too many filters are added, it hits a wall but even then is still a good 50% faster than Lightroom on a good day.
And as for the Interfaces. Allot of thought seems have been put into each one, but I found myself fighting the interface a bit more on Lightroom. It might be that I never used ACR so I am simply not used to it at all. The metadata browser was right cool, however, and hope to see in Aperture in the future.
Makes me wonder what the differences are. Could this be as much the camera used (Canon VS Nikon for the review), video card, memory, processor?
Steven -
Interesting observation on speed
2007-04-09 07:36:23 gwostrel [View]
Steven,
Really odd to read your comments regarding relative speed. I would have said exactly the same thing - but reversed. I have used Lightroom since the first beta and Aperture since its release. Aperture has always been extremely frustrating to use because of the constant "hangs" while it tries to do something. Lightroom, on the other hand, works well even on rather low end gear (eMac 1ghz G4 768ram). My work machines are Macbook Pro 2.16ghz Core2Duo/2gigs ram and Dual 2.0ghz G5/Radeon x1600/3.5g ram. Lighroom and Aperture behave the smae on both. Clearly there are "other" factors here.
-
iView has a function that both don't
2007-03-09 23:02:07 PunkStarStudios [View]
I've been doing the same thing for a few days - comparing trial versions of both Aperture and Lightroom.
Hands down - I love the Lightroom UI.
Aperture's integration with iLife is a HUGE bonus though - so this almost equals out the last point (almost).
One GLARING shortcoming though is the lack of auto syncing folders. I'm a recent Mac user, and on the PC I used Picasa (I almost shed a tear after bying the 24" iMac when I saw not OSX version of Picasa existed). Picasa autosynced the folders you set up to watch. When I dumped photos into a a folder - I didn't have to keep track of them for importing into my DAM software - it did that all on it's own automatically.
I am profoundly saddened by the lack of this feature in both Aperture and Lightroom. I know iView and Portfolio has it, and I applaud them - but the editing tools just aren't there for these guys... I've been seduced by the lightroom UI is most likely my problem here.
Anyhow, If Picasa ever made an OSX version, both Apeture and Lightroom will be in trouble (especially since Picasa is FREE). If Picasa ties into iLife... hell - that will be the one-two punch as far as I'm concerned.
Can someone PLEASE tell Adobe to look at the auto sync feature (this is no where near the same as their watched folder feature), and integration into iLife (and iWork for that matter) would have me pre-ordering the next release!
-
iView has a function that both don't
2007-07-18 06:23:58 gwilli [View]
Not to be funny or anything but you can't exactly compare Picasa with Lightroom or Aperture, it's like comparing a compact to a DSLR.
Aperture and Lightroom are professional photo management tools, Picasa's pretty much for your holiday snaps using your compact camera, hence why it's free.
If you want something comparible to Picasa there's something already on your mac, which is 10 times as good and free, it's called iPhoto.
Setting up "auto syncing folders" will only slow down your system.
-
Lightroom Web Gallery Poor Quality
2007-03-08 11:25:58 justinbastien [View]
Not only does Lightroom not have the option to sharpen images, it is also exporting HTML files with incorrect information. I created a web gallery using the Midnight template, set the Preview setting to 600 (large images) and exported the web gallery. All of the vertical images have been resized to 599, while the value for the height attribute in the img tag is set to 600. As a result of this inconsistency in the actual size of the image (599) and the height attribute (600) the images look considerably distorted.
I’ll be sticking with Photoshop for creating web galleries until Lightroom provides the ability to sharpen images and at least produces accurate HTML code and properly resizes images.
-
Alas for the iPhoto victims
2007-03-06 21:03:48 jfaughnan [View]
I'm doing my own testing of Lightroom, and I'm disappointed that it's so good. There's no real comparison, for me it's much better than Aperture. It's extremely fast on my G5 iMac and very easy to understand. I was productive immediately.
So why the disappointment?
Only Aperture will import iPhoto Libraries. I'm stuck.
Bleh. -
Alas for the iPhoto victims
2007-03-07 09:41:04 DaveedV [View]
I've read several iPhoto users saying they moved to Lightroom. Some said nice things about "PictureSync" (http://holocore.com/?PictureSync_Lightroom) helping with the keywords transfer.
-
Great series
2007-03-06 20:52:46 etherfarm [View]
Michael,
First of all, thanks to both you and Micah for spending some time "wearing the other's hat". This has been a great series of articles.
I, like perhaps many, am trying to decide between Aperture and Lightroom. I've spent years using iView Media Pro and a new camera acquisition has given me impetus to rethink my cataloging and processing workflow from scratch. I'm currently running, simultaneously, the trial versions of both Aperture and Lightroom, importing the same photos into both programs, getting a feel for each.
I would suggest, not necessarily as a criticism, that Michah seemed to give stronger consideration to the value in Lightroom's features than you did for Aperture's. Even after only a short time with both programs (longer with Lightroom, as I've been a beta user since b2), I can tell that Aperture's asset handling is far superior to Lightroom's. You seemingly write off these features, saying that you don't really need them for your workflow, and that "you didn't have a lot of time to work with the different projects and smart folder structure in Aperture." You take a similar approach towards many areas where Aperture excels, such as stacking, sharpening, and printing. I'm not saying a Lightroom bias was necessarily apparent, just that it may have been a good opportunity for you to consider how these features might benefit your workflow.
For example, I can't begin to tell you how valuable I find smart folders and stacking in Aperture, (I'm very glad Adobe put the latter feature into the final release). Sure, in iView and in the Lightroom betas, I can't say they played a very valuable role in my workflow--but that's because these features were completely absent. Only after I started contemplating how these features could be useful did I see its true value. In even this short trial period, in which I've loaded both programs with roughly 20,000 images, smart folders are an absolutely killer feature. Though as as you report, want to get behind the camera more, for some of us the time organizing and printing pictures is also part of the reward.
I agree there are aspects of Lightroom which are far more intuitive than Aperture, and should it sound like I'm defending Aperture, I'm not--I'm still very much undecided. Both programs have strengths, and at this point it's perhaps more a decision of how I want to work than evaluating features in and of themselves. I have ordered a new desktop system which might help me better evaluate the two programs. As you report, Lightroom seems way ahead on the performance / footprint ratio.
Anyway, thanks again for the series. I look forward to reading both Inside Aperture and Inside Lightroom, regardless of which program I end up with. -
Great series
2007-03-07 14:12:22 erikbarzeski [View]
I agree with etherfarm's third paragraph ("I would suggest..."). I also found the constant "I'm not biased, I assure you" assurances a tad off-putting. That's not to say I saw any actual bias, but if you have to keep telling us, it just comes off a bit oddly.
I like Lightroom for a lot of things. It seems to run better when I have all my other "day to day" apps running, for example.
JamieF1